In the story “Should This Student Have Been Expelled?” by Nat Hentoff was a very good argumentative passage. Hentoff argues that freedom of speech should be valued no matter how offensive it is interpreted by others. Dough Hann abused his freedom of speech when he blurted out “Fuck you niggers” to black students at Brown University. A student asked Hann to stop screaming and Hann yelled “What are you a faggot?” Next, Hann noticed an Israeli flag in the student’s dorm and asked “What are you a Jew?” and shouted, “Fucking Jew!”
Tiffany Foster Professor Dunn Comp 101 10 December 2014 Stand Up Although hurtful and demeaning, prejudiced slurs of all varieties have always transpired throughout society. Everyone has been offended by a bigoted remark at some point in time, but few people truly know how to respond to those insults in an effective manner. In the essay, “Don’t Just Stand There,” Diane Cole relates discriminatory offenses to her real-life experience as she tells a story of when a co-worker told her a joke with a very offensive punch line.
Keegstra appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before his trial, for an order to overturn the charge. The defense argued that the appeal should be allowed because sections 319(2) and 319(3) (a) of the Criminal Code are constitutional. Section 319(3) (a) of the code states that a person cannot be convicted of promoting hate if he or she establishes that the statement is true, guaranteed in section 11 of the Charter. However, Keegstra was unable to demonstrate the truth of the many prejudice statements he made to his students and many of Keegstra’s former students testified against him. Keegstra appealed his conviction and claimed the conviction was in violation of section 2(b).
In the passage “The Word Police” by Michiko Kakutani, there is great tone emphasized throughout the article. However, in the fifth paragraph of the article, Kakutani has some certainly strong, overwhelming tone. Kakutani first establishes their opinion with an appeal that there is an impulse to find political correctness, saying that “Certainly no decent person can quarrel with the underlying impulse behind political correctness…”. This general assumption implies that every decent person knows that there is some urge to be politically correct and that anyone who does not know this, is not a decent person. Kakutani then goes on to use pathos to say that these opinions can either make or break someone.
Between the January 2002 and January 2004 the defendant, Collins, made a series of telephone calls and voice recordings on an answering machine to members of his office. Within these telephone calls, and answering machine recordings the defendant used a number of pejorative racist phrases, such as; “wogs”, “pakis”, “black bastards” and “niggers”. The terms were not heard by members of ethnic minorities, but some of those who received the calls and heard the messages described themselves as “shocked”, “alarmed” or “depressed” by the defendants language. Following this, a formal complaint was made, charges were pressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defendant was tried for sending, by means of a public telecommunications system,
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
And, you should be as well” (Stetzer, 2017, para.9). Ed Stetzer ignites a sense of responsibility to feel disgusted and as if we should do something about it. He uses strong words such as “deeply offended” to make the point clear to the reader
The impression the news article creates is that the union members took aggressive action with armed force or violent measures, as well as the use of offensive reference to sex or bodily functions. The article also gives off the impression that the uniform members are sexist as said in the article, “the flat out mistreatment of volunteers who are woman was completely dehumanizing” which Watson uses to label NDP followers. Since the article similarly implies that Watson believes the NDP leader, Tracey, should be held responsible for the unions’ behaviour. The impression of violence is shown through the language used in the headline by the phrase “vulgar attack “. The word attack implies a high degree of violence and vulgar is commonly used
The murder of James Bulger prompted a media frenzy, not only on a national scale but also internationally, the pre-trial coverage was extremely extensive there was arguments that the juries opinions would be biased due to the opinions outputted via the media and public. Although the judge had agreed the coverage of the trial was beyond ordinary, it was agreed that it was acceptable for the hearing to undergo with the jury (Guardian, 2001). The UK media coverage of the crime had deeply affected the trial due to public opinion. The media vilified Venables and Thompson excessively, only the day after the judgement, the tabloid, the Daily Star headlined quoting ‘How do you feel now you little bastards?’
Political correctness is, as of now, an ongoing process, and not a finished product. One might agree with the author’s criticism of newly used terms such as “minimally exceptional” and “visually impaired” being far-fetched, but one must also keep in mind that these words could easily not be here to stay. Changing and improving language is not a definite thing: some words endure, and some do not - who is to say what expressions known today will become extinct in the
Miller describe an incident where someone who was being persecuted turned up his behind and cursed out saying, “kiss my gay pussy” and my wife who had attended the play with me choked out a laugh and we looked at each other and burst out laughing. To say we were shocked was an understatement. Not shocked because of the profanity but more so because of the truth of the wordings. We have never heard it put quite like that before. Others around us laughed and a couple of them had their mouths hanging open.
You would think that because a child of the group of girls that served as their evidence had come forward saying it was pretense, they would at least suspend the proceedings until everything had been sorted out. These adults had no care for anything that
A speech code is any university policy that forbids the use of hateful or contemptuous expressions towards any social group, particularly those categorized based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, etc. In this essay, I will explain why such regulations are justifiable for the reasons that Charles R. Lawrence Ⅲ states in Racist Speech as the Functional Equivalent of Fighting Words. He argues that speech codes “[do] nothing more than prohibit intentional face-to-face insults”(pg 175), and that “racial insults are undeserving of First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim.”(pg 175) A prime reason for many universities
The committee argued that furthering the legislation would reiterate the importance of speech, advising that ‘language itself can be a variety of violence’ (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). In 1994, the Racial Hatred Bill which highlighted the relationship between racial vilification and racist violence ("Racial Hatred Act", 1995). The amendment to the RDA states, under section 18C that it is “unlawful to give a public act that is moderately likely to ‘offend, abuse, humiliate or intimidate’ someone on the grounds of race” (Attorney-General’s Department,
Law was set forth that anyone who uses ‘mockery’ shall be fined and or suspended. Within a week, four kids were suspended and a dozen fined. Jay thought to himself that his life was now saner, normal and above
